Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating
-
Au contraire, a wino rattling about their lineage on the back of family folklore, genealogy and/or personal genomics services can be found almost everywhere.
-
@hwisdom said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
@lanadelesoteric dont care mr fedboy + i only just turned 20 like wtf you want me to work with?
There's nothing wrong with working in a factory Wisdom. In fact that there's an honesty in such things that can easily make an accidental careerist like me jealous.
If you do pivot to the ladder at some stage, you'll be needing to be a little more handy with your speech.
-
@BroJonas im trynna make my hair grow out asap so eating only sugar to upregulate thyroid + pretty sure insulin won’t spike taht hard if you eat ONLY sugar but I could be wrong
- aint serotonin in the brain a good thing? Or is ALL serotonin bad? Serotonin is a melatonin precursor which is basically the conciousness molecule imo
-
This post is deleted! -
@ThinPicking Snooze I'm just saying a ashkenazi jew would not be working in a meat factory.
-
@ThinPicking There is no inherent value in work. Whether you work at a meat factory or a office.
-
@lanadelesoteric Yawn I'm just saying a wino yappin about their lineage from some bs can be found packin meat. To be fair to you this type of individual is more likely to be found in factories making urinal cakes. Metaphorically or not.
-
@lanadelesoteric You reap what you sow. Clearly.
-
@ThinPicking Most antisemitism is just for idiots and scitzo's. Ashkenazi Jewish people are very high iq and successful people. A lot of it is just a politics of envy. Ashkenazi jewish people will be in Israel working a tech start up or in Brooklyn working as a psychotherapist.
-
@lanadelesoteric said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
@ThinPicking Most antisemitism is just for idiots and scitzo's.
We're most certainly in agreement about this. Read above and ye can know.
That other waffle you just said, no idea pal. Attempts at "racial" distinctions appear scientifically fallacious to me. At best.
-
@ThinPicking Yeh the 'oh he has a big nose so he's joo' is stupid. But ethnography is a real thing, different ethnicities and races have different behavioural characteristics and appearances. Its interesting and need not be prejudice.
-
@lanadelesoteric said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
But ethnography is a real thing, different ethnicities and races have different behavioural characteristics
For my entertainment and revisitation, I challenge you to make a thread and prove racial distinction in the context of this hilarious statement...
@lanadelesoteric said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
Ashkenazi Jewish people are very high iq
@lanadelesoteric said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
and appearances
You know what they say about appearances Lana.
By the way.
@lanadelesoteric said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
A lot of it is just a politics of envy.
There appear to be some glaring issues with the law compounding a behavioural problem or two. Not an insurmountable problem really.
-
@lanadelesoteric said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
the 'oh he has a big nose so he's joo' is stupid
@lanadelesoteric said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
But ethnography is a real thing, different ethnicities and races have different behavioural characteristics and appearances.
So "oh he has a big nose so he's joo" is true, but you don't like it because you think everyone who says that is doing it out of spite?
@ThinPicking said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
Attempts at "racial" distinctions appear scientifically fallacious to me.
I'll prove racial distinction for you in one little scientific experiment: Look at a picture of a white person; now, look at a picture of a black person. QED.
-
@zawisza said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
I'll prove racial distinction for you in one little scientific experiment: Look at a picture of a white person; now, look at a picture of a black person. QED.
Your ocular vision isn't what's been denied here.
-
@ThinPicking You seem to be denying genetic differences but if groups of people are visually different then they're likely genetically also.
-
@zawisza said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
You seem to be denying genetic differences but if groups of people are visually different then they're likely genetically also.
Where exactly? I am being a bit... abstract, for the potential of the original subject matter to raise hell.
I've taken issue with the idea genetic differences can explain variance in cognitive potential. Assuming that's even measurable. And assuming a height of it is even desirable. This seems to be a metabolic and environmental phenomenon.
I could take issue with the idea that genes are deterministic of physical differences over several generations, or that they're able to retain them if there are drastic changes in environment. But that's not the angle here. They certainly reflect them at any given moment.
-
@ThinPicking said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
I've taken issue with the idea genetic differences can explain variance in cognitive potential. Assuming that's even measurable.
It seems petty to me to acknowledge physical genetic differences but deny that there's a possibility of cognitive genetic differences. And, moreover, at the same time question whether the cognitive potential is even measurable. If a "difference" is not measurable how can we even talk of science?
@ThinPicking said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
I could take issue with the idea that genes are deterministic of physical differences over several generations, or that they're able to retain them if there are drastic changes in environment.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Blacks in america are still black even tho environment changed and generations passed. But if you inter-breed and change genes then appearance will change too obviously.
-
@zawisza said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
It seems petty to me to acknowledge physical genetic differences but deny that there's a possibility of cognitive genetic differences. And, moreover, at the same time question whether the cognitive potential is even measurable. If a "difference" is not measurable how can we even talk of science?
Neuroplasticity and surrounding factors don't seem petty to me. Denying them would. But I couldn't prove a position in literature alone.
You can measure aspects of it at points in time. IQ measuring several that are quite variable for an individual depending on their behaviour and understanding of the test itself. I could knock 10 points off an average of mine in a week with a sharp pivot to keto and/or other stupidity. Or improve with practice.
@zawisza said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
I don't understand what you mean by this. Blacks in america are still black even tho environment changed and generations passed. But if you inter-breed and change genes then appearance will change too obviously.
It wouldn't be surprising to me if epigenetic signalling for skin melanisation were something akin to turning an oil tanker floating in heavy crude. Nor that the genome would be riddled with subtle change, much in response to a picture far more complex than latitude.
But I don't know. And couldn't beyond reasonable doubt the last time I checked.
-
@ThinPicking said in Ashkenazi jew ahh looking coworker made fun of me for peating:
I've taken issue with the idea genetic differences can explain variance in cognitive potential. Assuming that's even measurable. And assuming a height of it is even desirable. This seems to be a metabolic and environmental phenomenon.
I could take issue with the idea that genes are deterministic of physical differences over several generations, or that they're able to retain them if there are drastic changes in environment. But that's not the angle here. They certainly reflect them at any given moment.
The environmental influence is apparent even within the first generation when people migrate. Dr. Peat mentions the work of anthropologist Boas in this passage:
“Professor Franz Boas at Columbia thought of himself as a Darwinist and evolution-oriented thinker, but when he actually studied the facts, he was showing that the environment rather than the genes govern even the person's biology, not only their language and thoughts and culture and ordinary everyday behavior, but even the shape of their organism. He measured the heads of Europeans who had moved either to New York or Puerto Rico and found that the first generation offspring of these immigrants had heads shaped more like New Yorkers or Puerto Ricans than like the European parents. Even though he thought of himself as a Darwinist, it showed the powerful importance of the material and the social culture that people move into, shaping even the organism, the body.” Ray Peat
Though Boas does not dismiss heredity completely but he warns against giving it too much prominence
A successful depopulation agenda requires high excess death rates, lower birth rates and for the majority to vilify those that question it.
-
It makes sense to me.
But I did make a rather bold "environment is not destiny" statement somewhere else, without meaning for genes to fill the gap. What was I getting at and do I even know. I'll be needing more days, more sleep and more patience for this. Or another light with another shortcut.
